Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states what the catalog is, not how the tool behaves, what parameters trigger, whether it returns a lookup, validates input, or performs any side effects. This is far below what is needed for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and has no filler words, which is structurally clean. But it is under-specified: for a tool with four unrelated-looking parameters and no annotations, one sentence that merely restates the subject is not appropriately sized. It is concise without being informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is inadequate for the tool's apparent complexity. With four optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of how url, host, json, or zone relate to HTTP status codes, an agent cannot determine what inputs to pass, what operation occurs, or what response to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter has some textual explanation. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate. However, the provided parameter semantics (URL normalization, JSON validation, IANA timezone) appear disconnected from the stated purpose of an HTTP status code catalog, which weakens overall usability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name: status-catalog becomes 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It adds a small amount of domain specificity ('common HTTP') but provides no verb or operation, so an agent cannot tell what invoking the tool actually does. It also does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as citation or compatibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any condition, prerequisite, or exclusion, and the sibling tools are not referenced. An agent has no basis for selecting this tool over citation or compatibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are distinct, but citation and normalize-url both accept URLs and return host/scheme, so an agent could select the wrong one. timezone/utc-time/iana-zones and compatibility/status-catalog also have overlapping territory, though the descriptions provide some separation.
Names are readable but follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (normalize-url, validate-json, inspect-robots), while others are noun compounds or standalone nouns (timezone, status-catalog, compatibility). This mix is not chaotic, but it lacks a predictable pattern.
11 tools is not excessive, and each utility is small and self-contained. However, the set feels like a grab bag of unrelated utilities rather than a tightly scoped server, and some tools could plausibly be consolidated.
The tools cover basic URL inspection, HTTP status, time lookups, JSON validation, and random generation, but the server's intended domain is unclear. Within that mix, there are notable gaps such as no timezone conversion, no URL encoding/decoding, and no way to inspect HTTP headers, so coverage feels incomplete.